Nuno Cunha Rodrigues guaranteed in Parliament that the irregularities found were “judicially proven”.
The calling ‘banking poster’ involved a continuous exchange of sensitive information between banks about prices and other commercial conditions for housing credit, consumer credit and credit for SMEs. It lasted 11 years, between 2002 and 2013.
The term – which banks dispute as not being legally correct, but which is commonly used – originates from a complaint by Barclays that led to a process by the AdC that sanctioned the banks.
The banks that saw their fines annulled are the CGD (82 million euros), BCP (60 million), Santander (35.65 million), BPI (30 million) Banco Montepio (13 million euros), BBVA (2.5 million), BES (700 mil), BIC (500 mil), Agricultural Credit (350 mil), UCI (150 mil).
O President of the Competition Authority, Nuno Cunha Rodriguescriticized the statements made by the banks targeted, during hearings in parliament, ensuring that the irregularities found were “proven in court”.
The person responsible, heard by the Budget, Finance and Public Administration Committee regarding requests presented by various parliamentary groups, reported his “perplexity” upon hearing financial institutions trying, as he said, “whiten” a performance that remained “judicially proven”.
“It seems to have transformed this commission in a kind of court of resource”, mentioned.
The banks were ordered to pay a fine of 225 million euros, after a process launched by the AdC, after several appeals, but the fines were cancelled, due to prescription.
Nuno Cunha Rodrigues acknowledged, at the hearing, that the AdC felt “frustration” with this outcome.
“It is inevitable that the Competition Authority feels some frustration when a serious infraction, confirmed on the merits in a national and European instance, does not have sanctioning consequences for strictly procedural reasons”, he lamented.
“It was possible to determine that the sensitive information exchanged between banks it included future ‘spreads’, on the risk variables considered by each of the banks when granting credit and individualized data on production that occurred in the previous month”, he indicated, in a statement to deputies.
According to the president of the AdC, “it was at stake strategic, non-public information, capable of reducing competitive uncertainty for all participants and facilitating the alignment of behaviors in a market, is known, concentrated and with relevant barriers to entry”.
Nuno Cunha Rodrigues also wanted to clarify that “the duration of the process did not correspond to seven years of continuous investigative activity by the Authority”, pointing out that “22 months of that period refer to phases in which the AdC was legally prevented from acting”, “because the seized evidence was under judicial control” and due to the suspension of the process “by decisions that gave a suspensive effect to interlocutory appeals”.
These decisions were later revoked by the Lisbon Court of Appeal, but until this revocation, “they imposed the suspension of the process, under penalty of the AdC disobeying court decisions”.
According to the president of Cade, “the prescription of fines did not result from the Authority’s failure or inertia” but rather “from the combination of several procedural factors occurred already in the judicial phase”.
He also recalled that “during the statute of limitations considered, the process was suspended or stopped for reasons beyond the control of the AdC for more than six years”.
Nuno Cunha Rodrigues also recalled that “the Competition Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union considered that the systematic exchange of future strategic information between competitors constitutes a restriction of competition by object, and that it violates national and European competition rules”.
According to the president of the AdC, “the prescription extinguished the sanctioning responsibility, but it did not annul the declaration of illegality nor was it equivalent to an acquittal on the merits”.
The president of the AdC also asked for a clarification in the law regarding the suspension of the limitation period for the period of time in which the AdC’s decision is subject to judicial appeal, to avoid more cases like this in the future.
